The Great Apostasy

[Chris_Jodrey]

Dude, i minored in anthropology and living in south texas spent quite a bit of time actually going to mexico and studying these things.

Having somebody say you know something doesn’t really mean much unless you back it up. It doesn’t look to me like you know much of what you’re talking about (not intended as an insult).

The BoM specifically mentions STEEL(scriptures.lds.org/ether/7/9#9)), it has oldworld metal swords to refer to.

Wow, you’re right, it mentions steel in the sword of Laban, which comes from the old world… thereby NOT indicating that Lehites produced steel. And actually, there really were steel swords around Jerusalem during that time period, which means that there are no logical discrepancies there.

Look at this scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/14#14 does that sound like macanas?

Yes. They would certainly fit the criteria given there. He never said he made them from the same materials. Remember that he had also had a steel bow. Then he went ahead and made a wooden one. (Oops, I guess that would make it no longer a bow, huh?)

Here scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/24/19#19 macahuitl isn’t much for thrusting.

scriptures.lds.org/isa/14/19#19
Talk about taking things out of context.

still using sword of Laban :scriptures.lds.org/w_of_m/1/13#13

… And?

please explain how obsidian and wood can rust :scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/8/11#11

Oh, it can’t. Steel can, and other metals and alloys can oxidate or tarnish, like copper. But again, those would date back much farther than the Nephite/Lamanite era. The ‘steel’ swords of the BoM are the sword of Laban and those of the Jaredites. As you know, rust is a kind of decomposition of iron, so what was already rusted a few centuries BC may now be totally destroyed, especially in humid Mesoamerican climates.

Come now, to say that macanas were mainly mangling weapons is pretty misleading. Any weapon is made to mangle. Swords (even steel swords ) that aren’t sharp enough will mangle, not slice. Even very sharp steel swords will simply ‘mangle’ if the hit isn’t accurate. Macanas can mangle when they are not sharp, which happens quickly. It’s one of the downsides to them as compared with steel. Steel is better able to keep its edge while obsidian breaks down easily, and sharpening is not really an option. Therefore these swords, or just the stone, would usually be replaced after a few uses. If it wasn’t, well, you’ve still got a great spiky club. But the primary purpose of a well-made Mesoamerican sword was not to simply ‘mangle,’ but to slice and dice. Do you know of any documents that state otherwise?

When you say “cumorah” just where are you referring to?

The BoM proves itself wrong if you look at scientifically. Why do you think the first presidency is so discouraging of historians and BoM archeology?

Could you provide a few references on this? I know that some are not in favor of it, but that is not the general feeling. In fact, several are very pro-science. Do you listen to General Conference? Even Gordon B. Hinckley sometimes breaks away from the feel-good spiritual messages most often delivered and quotes books of history and such. Then, there is always the fact that the Church funds BYU and so supports the FARMS organization. Otherwise, if what you say is true, it never would have even come into existence. Also, the Church is extremely supportive of education in general. It has many programs, such as the Perpetual Education Fund, so that members can go to good schools, get good educations, and live good lives. Seems to me that if the Church was afraid of people getting too smart on them they wouldn’t support or fund such programs. What I would like to see are some recent quotes from the Quorum of Twelve or First Presidency condemning secular research on the Book of Mormon and other gospel-related topics. They should be easy to find if this sentiment is so universal.

If you have any real rebuttals to what the apologists say, great, I’d love to hear it. But until then it’s not right to simply accuse them of having weak arguments and so on. I certainly don’t say such things against the Catholic apologists. I recognize that there are good, intelligent Catholics who try their best to defend their faith, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

I believe that some areas of Mormon apologetics are not yet well developed, and can be tricky. I still have questions about some things. However, I see none of that in the Book of Mormon. Part of my testimony is based on the academic strength of it. True that it can’t be proven true, but only a proud sucker trained in the art of ignorace would say that it has been proven false.

 

[arieh0310]

Chris Jodrey:

Wow, you’re right, it mentions steel in the sword of Laban, which comes from the old world… thereby NOT indicating that Lehites produced steel. And actually, there really were steel swords around Jerusalem during that time period, which means that there are no logical discrepancies there.

So, the lost tribes of Israel brought well over 200,000 heavy steel swords in ships to the New World, yet did not bring one blacksmith with the knowledge to smelt steel?

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I disagree here because the victors aren’t the only ones who write, and unless the Catholic church systematically tracked down and destroyed any historical writing that contradicted its own, …

Actually, some believe that this is the case, and it is not uncommon in war. For example, once Cortes sacked Tenochtitlan the Mexicans’ idols, codices, engravings, artwork, and city was destroyed completely. We have no surviving documents of their own hand, but luckily, several decades later, working in collaboration with the natives, some Spanish missionaries helped them rewrite their side of the history, though long after the fact. But, that’s not always the way it ends up. When genocide happens, no effort is made to let the loser write his history. With the Lamanites, remember that they had no writing system that we ever hear of in the BoM, and it shows as for many centuries afterward the mesoamerican Indians relied on oral tradition only. The Nephite prophets did though; it was their life.

I also disagree with this for the following reasons: we all agree that Christ established a church. We also agree that the Catholic Church, apostate or not, can trace its heritage back to the Apostles and therefore to Christ himself. Therefore, when the LDS come along 1700 years later and claim apostacy, it’s on their shoulders to say how and when. They must show where the established church fell apart. It would be the same as me going to the White House and claiming I was president because I thought the line was broken after George Washington.

I could probably say some things to this, but it’s not very important. Let’s just bring out whatever evidence we have and not argue about order.

Scripture and church history confirm that the passing of the office of bishop occurs via the laying on of hands. We have historical documents saying that Linus was a bishop, and not only that, but the bishop of Rome. What more you would need regarding his ordination I don’t know.

Well, everything there is, I guess. I’m not really telling you to convince me, but I am asking just how extensive the evidence is on this claim, so that I can make a fair assessment and not go through life supposing that the RCC has no grounds for supporting Linus as second pope. I don’t like being ignorant. I guess that’s what I’m looking for, then.

 

[ben_dy]

ben_dy:

And please pardon all errors in grammar and spelling - I have been ill and am on opioid painkillers so my mind is even more pixelated than usual - and I fear that it will remain so for at least another two weeks or so.

Chris,

Pardon, too, (and I’ll have to ask for a pardon of about two weeks as the Internet and reading are likely to be my primary sources of entertainment and mental exercise for that period of time) my lapse in a more complete answer the Peter-Linus succession. While I did quote Irenaeus…

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

…I failed to mention that Linus would only have been considered as Peter’s succedent as primate of Rome following the death of Peter. Linus may well have been a bishop at the time but would have been considered what we would today call an auxiliary bishop, not the Ordinary of the community, and may have acted within the range of authority permitted today in cases of the “Impeded See” - which certainly would have described Rome - and Peter’s imprisonment and martyrdom - at that time.

…I failed to mention as well the fact (or facts) that Linus was likely not simply chosen by Peter to be his successor, as the quote from Irenaeus seems to imply, but that Linus was elected to succeed Peter - as has always been the custom in selecting Bishops (but the method of which has changed over the years). Linus would likely have been elected by other bishops and the clergy as the Roman custom of allowing the body of the Church to vote in the election was not introduced for quite some time. It’s fairly easy to guess, in hindsight, that Linus was likely the front runner and not a dark horse candidate!

Also - coming out of my stupor (which I am now sliding back into) - I think that I realize where you were/are going with the questions concerning “uncontested Popes” and Constantine. There’s really no need here to beat about the bushes: asking a direct question such as “Did Constantine enjoy some pull in deciding who was elected Pope?” is far easier to answer than having to search for some connection (or perhaps that wasn’t/isn’t your question and only my muddled brain that is constructing the question?). That notwithstanding, let me quote your message once more:
Chris Jodrey:

…the big question is how that earliest uncontested pope got his line from Peter. To my understanding, that would be the emperor Constantine.

And I’ll begin the answer with a quick quote from The Catholic Encyclopedia yet again (wonderful people, those New Advent folks - I ‘pre-ordered’ the CD-ROM so that I could have it on my PowerBook when I was stuck in airports without an Internet connection):

After Constantine had given peace to the Church, the Christian Roman emperors often took part in the institution of a new pope and at times their influence was very marked. From the fourth century onwards, therefore, a new force had to be reckoned with. The occasion for the interference of the Roman emperors and later of the kings of Italy was afforded by disputed elections to the papal chair. The most noted of the earlier instance was at the election of Boniface I (418). This gave occasion to the decree (c. 8, dist. 79) that when an election was disputed a new candidate should be chosen.

To read the entire article on Papal Elections at New Advent, simply click newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm !
Chris Jodrey:

Or can we go even earlier than that, to the point where it would still be unarguable? Probably the most important piece of the puzzle is Peter’s immediate successor(s). If there was one straight line then it could be considered the same organization, but if there was a shift or a break then that would prove it wasn’t.

Now here, either the medication has me befuddled or I am simply not understanding your question. Are you asking if the election of Pope Sylvester I was illicit because of some undo influence by Constantine? There were a series of forged writings, written some two centuries afterward, not contemporary forgeries, in which Constantine and Sylvester are buddies - the Emperor showering the Pope with gifts, the Pope miraculously healing and baptizing the Emperor turned out to be some very nice, and very false, myths. There’s a whole history to the relationship of this Pope and this Emperor which is factual, interesting, etc., but no hint that I know of that Constantine bought the election. Nor am I aware of any earlier (or subsequent) elections that would “break” Apostolic succession.

I’ve one more point to touch on but I anticipate it may be brought up in your reply… so I’ll have a lay me down just now…

 

[PaulDupre]

Getting rid of all the documentation of early Christianity is not like wiping out a tribe of natives.

There were thousands of copies made of the NT gospels and epistles and the writings of the anti-Nicene ECFs in dozens of languages throughout the known world. Many of those have only been found in recent years. They all agree exactly with the documents as we have them today.

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

Wow, you’re right, it mentions steel in the sword of Laban, which comes from the old world… thereby NOT indicating that Lehites produced steel. And actually, there really were steel swords around Jerusalem during that time period, which means that there are no logical discrepancies there.

No it says he made swords in the new world that were the same type as the sword of Laban. He speaks of the great abundance of metals here in the americas and how he made STEEL.
Chris Jodrey:

Yes. They would certainly fit the criteria given there. He never said he made them from the same materials. Remember that he had also had a steel bow. Then he went ahead and made a wooden one. (Oops, I guess that would make it no longer a bow, huh?)

It sure looks like the same type. His descriptions are detailed. and I don’t see anyone claiming that atlatls are really what’s meant by bow so that’s ludicrous.
Chris Jodrey:

Oh, it can’t. Steel can, and other metals and alloys can oxidate or tarnish, like copper. But again, those would date back much farther than the Nephite/Lamanite era. The ‘steel’ swords of the BoM are the sword of Laban and those of the Jaredites. As you know, rust is a kind of decomposition of iron, so what was already rusted a few centuries BC may now be totally destroyed, especially in humid Mesoamerican climates.

Please, steel that’s under the ocean can still be recognized for what it is. we are talking about enough swords to kill over 2 million people. Just vanished huh?
Chris Jodrey:

When you say “cumorah” just where are you referring to?

The same place JS was referring to. we can see in his writings that he meant the one where he got the plates. However, show me any hill in the western hemisphere where a battle of that size took place and left no trace of weaponry.
Chris Jodrey:

Could you provide a few references on this? I know that some are not in favor of it, but that is not the general feeling. In fact, several are very pro-science. Do you listen to General Conference? Even Gordon B. Hinckley sometimes breaks away from the feel-good spiritual messages most often delivered and quotes books of history and such. Then, there is always the fact that the Church funds BYU and so supports the FARMS organization. /snip.

FARMS is a spin factory not science. how about Boyd Packer and the september 6? LDS wants members to be educated so that they can make money. (not a bad thing) but they don’t want members digging into history objectively. Packer says you have to show the hand of God in every moment of church history or you are helping Satan.
Chris Jodrey:

If you have any real rebuttals to what the apologists say, great, I’d love to hear it. But until then it’s not right to simply accuse them of having weak arguments and so on.

Well if the apologists would actually make a verifiable claim I would rebut it. The problem is that Jefflindsay and FARMS and FAIR just deal in “plausibilities”. They claim that it “could have happened” so it must be true. how about michael coe and thomas stuart ferguson. those are good references. BYU’s own Ray matheny. and this:

For example, some popular ‘Mormon’ books show pictures of classic Maya, Inca, and Aztec ruins and attribute them to the Nephites. Scholars are aware that these civilizations postdate Book of Mormon times. Other gross errors include the use of out-dated or otherwise unreliable source materials and the tendency to make every piece of evidence fit neatly into the Book of Mormon picture, whether it belongs there or not." - U.A.S. Newsletter, No. 54, Nov. 19, 1958, p. Z. Dr. Dee F. Green, LDS Archaeologist and the editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter at B.Y.U.

I’m still waiting for someone to make a verifiable claim that is recognized by a non-LDS scholar. The big point in all of this is wher’s your GA proof? you wish to claim that there isn’t enough evidence to PROVE that the BoM is false so it must be true. On the other hand you accept the GA just because JS said so.
Chris Jodrey:

I believe that some areas of Mormon apologetics are not yet well developed, and can be tricky. I still have questions about some things. However, I see none of that in the Book of Mormon. Part of my testimony is based on the academic strength of it. True that it can’t be proven true, but only a proud sucker trained in the art of ignorace would say that it has been proven false.

Or anyone who has studied anthropology and pre-columbian civilizations. DNA evidence is enough for me and yes I’'ve read the pathetic grasping for straws that the apologists wrote.We haven’t even gotten to the PoGP with it’s ridiculous facsimiles that absolutely prove JS wasn’t a translator. I have never heard a single Mormon scholar say that their testimony of the BoM was in way founded on it’s academic strength.

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris Jodrey:

Actually, some believe that this is the case, and it is not uncommon in war. For example, once Cortes sacked Tenochtitlan the Mexicans’ idols, codices, engravings, artwork, and city was destroyed completely. We have no surviving documents of their own hand, but luckily, several decades later, working in collaboration with the natives, some Spanish missionaries helped them rewrite their side of the history, though long after the fact. But, that’s not always the way it ends up. When genocide happens, no effort is made to let the loser write his history. With the Lamanites, remember that they had no writing system that we ever hear of in the BoM, and it shows as for many centuries afterward the mesoamerican Indians relied on oral tradition only. The Nephite prophets did though; it was their life.

I can accept the war/genocide logic, but in the case of the early Christian church, we’re not talking about war or genocide. Did the “apostate” church wage a genocidal war on the true church? There is no record of that, so the example really doesn’t fit.

I have a hard time believing that the Lamanites had no writing system since they originated from a culture that did. And if the Nephites relied on writing, where is the rest of their writing? Or was all the writing of the entire Nephite civilization limited to the BoM golden plates?

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

Thank you, Ben, for your honest and thorough response.

You mentioned that Linus was placed in Rome with Peter and Paul. As Chris-WA corrected me, it is not necessary for the current leader to ordain the next, so it doesn’t really matter in that sense whether they were all together or not.

Correct - a dead Pope could not ordain the next elected Pope. That’s assuming, of course, that the next Pope would need ordination - it’s been awhile since that has occurred: Linus may have already held the bishopric or may have been ordained by Peter, Paul, or another apostle - but I believe (and I do wish a Papal historian would jump in) that Peter ordained Linus to that episcopal office. In the case of Linus, he was preferred as the successor to Peter by both Peter and Paul and yet if someone else had been elected to fulfill Peter’s role, that person would still have been the valid head of the Church.
Chris Jodrey:

You should understand that to LDS the way in which one becomes the president of the Church, head apostle, prophet, etc, is very specific. In fact, the ordinations to any office, or any ordinance for that matter, has a set way it is to be done. There is an order in this, and if this order is not argued against and then was not followed way back when, then that witness would immediately put into question. Now, I am aware of Church history, and I know that in certain circumstances there is no pre-established order to follow, and there are exceptions, such as Joseph Smith being baptized twice. That would never be done today in that manner, yet that’s the way it happened then. So, the way I see it, although the topic of proper priesthood setting apart and ordination plays a very important role, it is not set in stone. I think there are general guidelines that have to be followed, though. For example, if all the apostles end up dead or missing some guy can’t just come forward and declare himself the next in line; if he really was called by God to do so that would basically be a restoration in itself, and the people would have to choose all over again whether that new organization was true or not. Basically, I would imagine that the basic formula found in Acts 1 would apply. What is the Catholic view on this? Is there a correct formula to follow in such events, and would a deviation from that be bad?

As to the LDS way of choosing the next prophet, that’s something I’ve never been quite clear about. I understand that Joseph Smith, Junior, wished for his son, Joseph Smith, III, to become the next prophet and I’ve never been quite clear as to how Brigham Young wound up with the job. As I understand the LDS system now, various men are called (with the aid of the Holy Spirit, I presume, guiding those who do the calling) into various hierarchical offices and, at the top of the bunch is the ‘First Presidency’ which consists of three men, all ‘Presidents’ (? That’s one I’m not clear on) but only one who also hold the title ‘prophet’ - he who is the eldest of the three and, these days Gordon Hinckley - and upon the death of the prophet the next in line is the eldest of the two remaining and another (and, again, I’m unclear as to whether this has to be from the “12 Apostles” or the “Quorum of the Seventy”) will be called in to fill the gap in the trio of the First Presidency. Not certain if I have this right (and, man, has this drifted off-topic) or not.

The Catholic view on choosing an Apostolic successor to serve Peter’s function as head of the Church is that he is elected by those who also enjoy Apostolic succession - today what we call the “College of Cardinals” all of whom are Bishops of the Church. It might be of some interest to note that while it is the norm for a new Pope to be elected from a member of that body, that has not always been the case - in the past Popes have been elected who merely held to office of deacon or priest and were ordained Bishop upon election to the Pontifical office (which would still be the case today should a priest not yet ordained a Bishop be elected to the Papacy - the necessary actions which should follow such an occurrence are currently provided for in the Code of Canon Law 332 § 1.). So, yes, there are very specific guidelines to follow and while the most basic of those guidelines is found within Acts, as the world has changed, so too have the guidelines governing the election. With the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI the whole world, thanks to modern communications technology, had a ‘front row seat’ into almost every aspect of the election save broadcast inside the actual conclave.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…
Chris Jodrey:

When and how was this convention used? Do you mean among the Jews or among the early Christians? As far as the Bible goes, there is debate as to whether priests were to exist at all in the way they had before. Or are you referring to what Paul calls priests when he explains to them their duties? I think there may be a Greek nuance there between the two terms.

Anyway, I know that Paul thought of himself as a spiritual father of those he converted. That may fit somewhere here.

The Greek word “πατερας” was used by Paul in 1 Cor. 4:15 - “Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” and as the “presbyters” were seen as “fathers” in the same manner of the local churches, I’m supposing that’s where the ‘nickname’ originated.
Chris Jodrey:

Odd, I always thought he was a pope… Oh well. What I mean to say, so that we can narrow down the discussion, is that there is a long line of popes in the Catholic Church, vacancies or no, that are uncontested historically by believers in the great apostasy. Basically, it’s like saying that the RCC can have its popes, but somewhere in the beginning the line became corrupted. So the question is, where was that most likely to happen, if it happened at all? In other words, who is the weakest link? Obviously you would be tempted to say that the chain’s all historically strong, but for the purposes of this dialogue, if there was a break, where was it most likely to have been? My suspicion is that this revolves around Linus, but I could be wrong; it could have been someone after him. I hope I make myself a little clearer with this…

I’m not sure that it’s a witness that some Mormons might demand, but at least a statement that it was done in that way. Again, this is related to what I mentioned above about the order in priesthood ordinances.

Who is the weakest link? That’s kind of like asking which Pope was female - none, to my knowledge (unless, for those who enjoy speculative fantasy, “Pope Joan”!). No, the link between Peter and Linus is indisputable - there’s no ‘degree of separation’ there. If you’re looking for a “break” in Apostolic succession to prove a “Great Apostasy”. And I’m not even certain if that’s what you’re suggesting or not - as I said, there’s no need to beat around the bush - we could address the issue much better if you’d just let us know where and why the LDS believes a “Great Apostasy” occurred and if it, in fact, is centered around Apostolic succession of the authority given Peter.

To find a ‘weakest link’ I suppose you’d have to find a Pope who was recognized by the Church as legitimate but was not, in fact, legitimate - or, I suppose, a Pope who taught heresy which was accepted by the Church. Fundamentalists have been trying to do just that for quite a while yet have not succeeded although they sometimes think they’ve scored when they come up with a Pope who was a really horrible human being, or when they mistake practices for Doctrine, etc. The weakest argument in a ‘weakest link’ search would be to declare a ‘break’ during a time when the Roman See was vacant or in doubt: that doesn’t fly, however, because there has always been a legitimate Apostolic succession within a time frame that precludes illegitimacy. If you could find a period of time lasting, perhaps, a century or a bit less, where there was no legitimate successor to Peter and all the Bishops enjoying Apostolic succession had died, so that there could logically be no more Bishops to endow legitimate succession to another, then you might be able to make a case. We are fortunate in that Christ promised that nothing like that could occur and he He has kept His promise.

A direct question, then - does the LDS Church specify when a “Great Apostasy” occurred and, if so, does it have anything to do with the Apostolic lineage of the Papacy? I’d really like to get back on topic, yet you’ve provided no clues as to whether Apostolic succession has anything to do with this “Great Apostasy” or not. I feel as if the Catholics here have been very forthcoming as to the history of the Church yet we’ve heard nothing from LDS members about this doctrine of a “Great Apostasy” or even when it was supposed to have occurred. It’s a pretty useless topic of discussion when it’s so very one-sided.

 

[dennisknapp]

ben_dy:

…continued…

The Greek word “πατερας” was used by Paul in 1 Cor. 4:15 - “Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” and as the “presbyters” were seen as “fathers” in the same manner of the local churches, I’m supposing that’s where the ‘nickname’ originated.

Who is the weakest link? That’s kind of like asking which Pope was female - none, to my knowledge (unless, for those who enjoy speculative fantasy, “Pope Joan”!). No, the link between Peter and Linus is indisputable - there’s no ‘degree of separation’ there. If you’re looking for a “break” in Apostolic succession to prove a “Great Apostasy”. And I’m not even certain if that’s what you’re suggesting or not - as I said, there’s no need to beat around the bush - we could address the issue much better if you’d just let us know where and why the LDS believes a “Great Apostasy” occurred and if it, in fact, is centered around Apostolic succession of the authority given Peter.

To find a ‘weakest link’ I suppose you’d have to find a Pope who was recognized by the Church as legitimate but was not, in fact, legitimate - or, I suppose, a Pope who taught heresy which was accepted by the Church. Fundamentalists have been trying to do just that for quite a while yet have not succeeded although they sometimes think they’ve scored when they come up with a Pope who was a really horrible human being, or when they mistake practices for Doctrine, etc. The weakest argument in a ‘weakest link’ search would be to declare a ‘break’ during a time when the Roman See was vacant or in doubt: that doesn’t fly, however, because there has always been a legitimate Apostolic succession within a time frame that precludes illegitimacy. If you could find a period of time lasting, perhaps, a century or a bit less, where there was no legitimate successor to Peter and all the Bishops enjoying Apostolic succession had died, so that there could logically be no more Bishops to endow legitimate succession to another, then you might be able to make a case. We are fortunate in that Christ promised that nothing like that could occur and he He has kept His promise.

A direct question, then - does the LDS Church specify when a “Great Apostasy” occurred and, if so, does it have anything to do with the Apostolic lineage of the Papacy? I’d really like to get back on topic, yet you’ve provided no clues as to whether Apostolic succession has anything to do with this “Great Apostasy” or not. I feel as if the Catholics here have been very forthcoming as to the history of the Church yet we’ve heard nothing from LDS members about this doctrine of a “Great Apostasy” or even when it was supposed to have occurred. It’s a pretty useless topic of discussion when it’s so very one-sided.

Very well put, Ben. Most impressive.

I concur. It is not enough to just assert something happened, you need to prove it happened. Especially something as severe as a “Great Apostasy.”

The weight of the evidence should equal the weight of the accusation.

Peace

 

[majick275]

The LDS church has never established a specific date for the alleged apostasy. They claim that it occured after the death of the Apostles.

There are some extended issues though with this. One should look at LDS history during the period between JS finishing the BoM and JS establishing a “first presidency”. When JS established offcially the LDS church they did not have the two priesthoods nor the various offices in them. Using only the BoM with it’s “fullness” of the gospel as a guide he started with himslef and Oliver as first and second elder in the church. Later he gets Aaronic priesthood from John the baptist even though Hebrews seems to indicate that this is now finished. Further John the Baptist was not even close to being the last one to hold this priesthood and was never established in LDS scripture as a priesthood leader. Peter James and John then give the higher priesthood even though, once again, they were not the last to hold it. The 3 nephites who supposedly still walk the earth are considered to have “Apostolic” authority as would John the beloved. Only later does JS decide to create a quorum of apostles. From BY to GBH it is the seniormost Apostle who succeeds to the office of president. Here is where it gets problematic for this GA theory. LDS doctrine shows us a claim to authority for people who supposedly are still around. at the very least we see who “should” have been the leader of the primitive church AFTER Peter. The instructions of the D&C collide with bible and BoM and get really muddled bt JS actions. NONE of these support the LDS theory of universal apostasy. Did Moroni have priesthood authority? this would help identify the alleged start of this apostasy but it also begs the question why didn’t he baptize JS and OC? why didn’t he ordain them as well? The inconsistencies in this whole process show a distinct change in JS own beliefs. (most likely the influence of sidney rigdon) The net effect is to have a very hazy doctrine of this “great Apostasy” that doesn’t ever show you when it happened or any evidence that it occured. It all hinges on JS “first vision” account of the Lord telling him not to join any church because they were all wrong and abominations in his sight. We are never told what in the creeds is so abominable nor any other example of false doctrine alleged in the churches of that time.

Balance this against the historical evidence we have that establishes the doctrine and practices of the early church and the current RCC.

Consider also the lack of historical evidence for establishing BoM era doctrine and practices further complicated by the VAST differences between what is written in the BoM and what is practiced by LDS today.

What you see is no worldwide Apostasy ever. No scriptural support for the Lord abandoning the entire earth for 1800 years and an LDS church that appears to have apostatized from itself.

Once again I turn to 2 Peter for a description of the real apostates.

 

[majick275]

In the mid 1970’s President Spencer W. Kimball made this statement, which The Church News published: “Stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none.”

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

The LDS church has never established a specific date for the alleged apostasy. They claim that it occured after the death of the Apostles.

OK - now that you’ve brought this up, I have a question.

Traditionally (and, had I not begun the sentence with the word, I would have written “small t” traditionally) John (brother of James, son of Zebedee, the beloved, the Evangelist, etc.) is the Apostle who is the last to die - BUT - somewhere 3 Nephi 28, when the three Nephites are allowed to “tarry” and not die, it’s said that this was also the case with John the beloved.

The next we hear about the same John and his tarrying is in D&C 7 (April 1829) and the revelation reiterates that John is given power over death yet he’s also spoken of as a ministering angel to minister to those who “dwell on the earth”. So - at this point - is John an immortal person of flesh and blood (which Nephi and the earlier verses of D&C seem to imply) or a person of spirit with physical attributes that can be summoned as needed (which is what ‘angel’ seems to imply)?

D&C 27 (August 1830) has Jesus seeming to speak of the ordination of of JS (and OC?) to be apostles: ordained by Christ, yet ‘activated’ by Peter, James, and John. Is this the same John? If he’s immortal flesh-and-bones man who has not tasted death, what’s the need for Peter and James to make an appearance? Couldn’t John (providing he had reliable transportation - and what good ministering angel wouldn’t?) have just come along and actually ordained JS?

Again - am I getting my Johns confused or am I missing something?

The main body of your paragraph brings up so many questions but I’ll let those idle for the moment! Always a pleasure when you - and I mean the majick you, not the inclusive you - are able to shed some light for we who’ve had to wallow in the filth of the Great and Apostate Church of Satan since childhood (well, since I was 9 days old - and the Very God Lord knows that I jest!).

 

[majick275]

first remember that LDS do not believe that angels are a separate order of being. They believe that they are people. Some have no physical body because they haven’t been born on earth yet but most have a resurected body because they have already overcome the world. Moroni would be a good example of the latter. They believe the archangel Michael is Adam and that the angel Gabriel is Noah.

John the beloved is not the same John as Peter, James and John in LDS belief. One wonders why John or the three nephites (or moroni) couldn’t have handled these “ordinances”. It is yet another inconsistency in JS doctrinal “evolution” that seems more rooted in the D&C than in the BoM.

Other angels are alleged to have come and performed ordinances to “restore” authority to the earth. JS claims that Elijah and Elias are two different people and both visited him to “restore” ordinances. He also claimed that Moses visited as well and did the same. One would think that Jesus would have given necessary authority to his apostles so that they could have transferred this authority instead of having to bring back OT angels. Apparently JS thought his work to have a larger scope than Jesus and his Apostles. (except for the atonement)

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

In the mid 1970’s President Spencer W. Kimball made this statement, which The Church News published: “Stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none.”

And, as to the continued speculation by the hopeful at FARMS for the existence of another Hill Cumorah:

    SPECULATION ABOUT BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Within recent years there has arisen among certain students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites were confined almost entirely within the borders of the territory comprising Central America and the southern portion of Mexico—the isthmus of Tehauntepec probably being the "narrow neck" of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon rather than the isthmus of Panama.

    This theory is founded upon the assumption that it was impossible for the colony of Lehi's to multiply and fill the hemisphere within the limits of 1,000 years, or from the coming of Lehi from Jerusalem to the time of the destruction of the Nephites at the Hill Cumorah. Moreover, they claim that the story in the Book of Mormon of the migrations, building of cities, and the wars and contentions, preclude the possibility of the people spreading over great distances such as we find within the borders of North and South America....

    LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case. It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

    EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

    Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery. Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history....

    NEPHITE AND JAREDITE WARS IN WESTERN NEW YORK. In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America. Neither can we say that the great struggle which resulted in the destruction of the Nephites took place in Central America. If Zelph, a righteous man, was fighting under a great prophet-general in the last battles between the Nephites and Lamanites; if that great prophet-general was known from the Rocky Mountains to 'the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea,' then some of those battles, and evidently the final battles did take place within the borders of what is now the United States....

    CUMORAH ONCE SITE OF CARNAGE AND DESTRUCTION. As I stood upon the summit of the Hill Cumorah, in the midst of a vast multitude, only a few of whom belonged to the Church, I tried to picture the scenes of former days. Here were assembled vast armies filled with bitterness and bent on destruction....

    IMPORTANCE OF CUMORAH UNKNOWN TO WORLD. . . ."Here it was that Moroni, commanded by the Lord, hid up the sacred records of his people. Here it was. 1,400 years later, that he, then a resurrected being, came to Joseph Smith and committed these same records to the young man's care. At the time of the Prophet's first visit to the hill, it was covered with trees; today (1923) it is stripped and bare, save for the grass which grows abundantly. " (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)

…and yet for those who continue to speculate…

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks
Moore Ward
Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake
1000 Windemere
Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours,
(signed)
F. Michael Watson
Secretary to the First Presidency

 

[Robert_in_SD]

majick275:

In the mid 1970’s President Spencer W. Kimball made this statement, which The Church News published: “Stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none.”

While I think that the topic of whether there is historical proof for the BoM is fascinating, and worthy of its own thread, it is a bit off topic here. The truth of the alleged “Great Apostasy” does not rise or fall based upon historical evidence for the BoM.

 

[majick275]

you are correct of course. There is this similarity though, There was no great apostasy thus we find no evidence of it.

 

[dennisknapp]

majick275:

you are correct of course. There is this similarity though, There was no great apostasy thus we find no evidence of it.

Plus, the weight of the evidence should equal the weight of the accusation.

Peace

 

[ben_dy]

Robert in SD:

While I think that the topic of whether there is historical proof for the BoM is fascinating, and worthy of its own thread, it is a bit off topic here. The truth of the alleged “Great Apostasy” does not rise or fall based upon historical evidence for the BoM.

You’re correct but I would like to point out once more that the only reason I brought up the historicity of the BoM was to insist that it, with predictions of apostasy, should not be included as a common reference for ‘proof’ that any “Great Apostasy” ever occurred.

I am quite willing - eager, even - to get back on topic (or, more correctly, begin to beThis thread is to discuss the evidences for and against the restorationalist “great apostasy” doctrine.

…yet I’m left puzzled by the lack of evidence offered - or even explanation of - “the restorationalist “great apostasy” doctrine” by the LDS members who frequent this board. The ex-LDS members have given more insight but they’re not offering any evidence for a “Great Apostasy” doctrine, either. Not that I expect them to do so!

This thread is sort of reminiscent of the old (if you’re old enough to remember it and not to proud to say that, at the time, it really was funny) Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef” ad… save in this case it is not beef that’s missing, it’s the “Great Apostasy”. There doesn’t even seem to be a bun…

I do feel a bit sorry for Chris as it seems that the LDS regulars have left him to his own devices here and I’m not certain why.

So to get back on track - “Where’s the Great Apostasy”?